I have just finished reading the "Arthur" review in issue #96 of Saga (which before I get too far let me compliment you on striking a great balance between scholarship, readability and enjoyability). If I may be allowed to make a comment on your editor's note where you gently chided the review for not seeing the movie as entertainment? In my own opinion, I have a tough time accepting that when the movie starts off with Iaon Guffuard's dramatic baritone "Based on the latest archeological evidence" and nor use advertisements "Arthur, the true story" etc. as this implies that the movie is indeed historically accurate, when in fact as your reviewer so eloquently pointed out it is not. It is statement like these which cause many unsuspecting viewers to become unwitting alumni of "The Oliver Stone School of History".

If a movie is going to be strictly an entertainment, then it shouldn't try to legitimize itself by taking on the trappings of being based on historical fact, and it is in doing this that "Arthur" goes wrong for me. This is especially disingenuous when it distorts facts, such as this film does about early Christianity, perhaps deliberately to make a "statement"; it is misleading and intellectually dishonest.

A movie can not have it both ways, puff itself up as historically accurate and then claim "it's only entertainment" when they get caught as not coming through on that statement. For the record, I do not have any objection on the movie "Troy" and agree with your take on the film, as the whole subject is built on myth anyway it is therefore free game for interpretation.

Anyway, my 2 cents, and thank you for fine magazine.